MS 433 (1902) - Minute Logic - Chapter IV

ReadAboutContentsHelp
Ethics

Pages

1
Needs Review

1

LOGIC Chapter IV. ETHICS

It is pretty generally admitted that logic is a normative sicent, that is to say, it not only lays down rules which ought to be, but need not be followed; but it is the analysis of the condition of attainment of something of purpose is an essential ingredient. It is, therefore, closely related to an art; from which, however, it differs markedly in that its primary interest lies in understanding those conditions, and only secondarily in aiding the accomplishment of the purpose. Its business is analysis, or, as some writers prefer to say definition. The word normative was invented in the school of Schleirmacher. The majority of writers who make use of it tell us that there are three normative sciences, Logic, Esthetics, and Ethics, the doctrines of the True, tho Beautiful, and the Good, a trial of ideals which has been recognized since antiquity. on the other hand,

Last edit over 5 years ago by kheilajones
2
Needs Review

2

Logic IV. 2 , we quite commonly find the term "normative science" restricted to Logic and Ethics, and Schlaiermacher himself states their purposes in a way that seems to give room for no third. The one, he says, relates to making thought conform to being, the other to making being conform to thought. There seems to be much justice in this restriction. For that which renders Logic and Ethics peculiary normative is that nothing can be either logically true or morally good without a purpose to be so. For a propostion, and especially the conclusion of an argument, which is only accidentally true is not logical. On the other hand, a thing is beautiful or ugly quite irrespective of any purpose to be so. It would seem, therefore, that esthetics is no more essentially normative than any nomological science. The science of optics, for example, might be regarded as the study of the conditions to be observed in making use of light. Under such a conception,

Last edit over 5 years ago by kheilajones
3
Needs Review

3

Logic IV 3 nothis essential to optics would be omitted, nor anything foreign to it inserted. Those writes, however, who stand out for the trinity of normative sciences do so upon the ground that they correspond to three fundamental categories of objects of desire. As to that, the logician may be exempted form inquiring whether the Beautiful is a distinct ideal or not; but he is bound to say how it may be with the True; and accordingly the intentionof this chapter is to lay the foundation for the doctrine, which will appear more and more evident as we proceed, that that Truth the conditions of which the logician endeavors to analyze, and which a phase of the [summun?] [bonun?] which forms the subject of pure ethics, and that neither of those men can really understand himself until he preceives clearly that it is so.

Last edit over 5 years ago by kheilajones
4
Needs Review

4

Logic IV 4

I hope I shall not be thought to wander if I note one observation by the way, before formally settling down to the questions. Were there nothing in reasoning ore than the old traditional treatises [so?] forth, then a roguemights be as good a reasoner as a man of honor; althoug a coward could not, even wander such an idea of reasoning. But in indution a habit of provity is needed for success: a trickster is sure to play the confidence game upon himself. And in addition to probity, industry is essential. In the presumptive choice of hypotheses, still higher virtues are needed,- a true elevation of soul. At the very lowest, a man might prefer the truth to his own interest and well-being and not merely to his bread and butter, and to his own vanity, too, if he is to do much in science. This will appear in the logical discussion; and it is thoroughly [borne?] out by examining the characters of scientific men and of great [heretic?]

Last edit over 5 years ago by kheilajones
5
Needs Review

5

Logic IV. 5 student of all kinds. It is a remarkable fact that exluding idle tales about pre-socratic philosophers, all history does not tell of a single man who had considerably increased human knowledge (unless theology be knowledge) having been proved a criminal. Of the four or five instances usually adduced, Seneca neither contributed to knowledge nor has been conviced of positive crime; Calvin was nothing but a theologian; the attacks upon Erasmaus are beneath contempt; Back was no man of science, ut only a grandiose writer, whose very stle betrays him; Dr. Dodd was an ordinary commentator on the Bilble; and nothing was proved against Libri. The same may be said of whispers that is or that naturalist owned specimen, in the interest of science. The lofty character of the true man of science physical or psychical, finds not one exception among a hundred. But is is needless to go to history for cases in which relatively small obliquities have prevented eminent

Last edit over 5 years ago by kheilajones
Displaying pages 1 - 5 of 21 in total